Alan Whitehead: I beg to move amendment 16, in clause4,page4,line9,at end insert—
“(ba) in paragraph 33(3), for “negative” substitute “affirmative”
This amendment would apply the affirmative procedure to the use of provisions of Schedule 20 of the Energy Act 2004 under this Act.
The amendment, which I alluded to this morning, relates to a further clause in the Bill to allow regulations to be made by the negative procedure, not the affirmative procedure that I think hon. Members would prefer in most circumstances. Clause 4(1) deals with the possibility that, as smart metering develops, the licence holder of the Data Communications Company could be a non-GB company. The clause sets out what would be the conditions of administration of the future DCC in the event that the company that was the ultimate owner was not a UK company; separate arrangements might have to be made for it. In the memorandum from the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, which I have mentioned previously, the procedure that is set out in the clause is described thus:
“We consider that the negative resolution procedure is justified for providing for what would be detailed modifications narrowly focused on particular provisions of insolvency legislation and their specific application to a non-GB company. Affirmative resolution procedure or new primary legislation is not considered to be appropriate given the nature of the changes.”
No particular reason is given for the fact that affirmative legislation is not considered to be appropriate. A further consideration that is new in this clause—it was not the case with the previous clause that we discussed in relation to affirmative resolution procedures—is that, as the memorandum states at the beginning of the paragraph, legislation on what would happen if the owner was a non-GB company would be undertaken using a Henry VIII power. We have not yet discussed Henry VIII powers in this Committee, although we discussed them in a previous Committee in which the Minister and I were involved. On that occasion it was generally concluded that the use of Henry VIII powers in legislation was a bad idea. As I am sure hon. Members will know, Henry VIII powers essentially allow primary legislation that is on the statute books to be amended by secondary means. As a general principle in this House, one would have thought that enabling the Government to do that—depending on what bounds have been placed on the procedure—is potentially a worrying development. Without recourse to the Floor of the House and a full debate on the legislation, a Government can, if that legislation contains Henry VIII clauses, use secondary legislation to alter  what Parliament had previously discussed during the full process of Second Reading, Committee, Report and so on, through both Houses of Parliament. The Government can amend that legislation through a regulation that substitutes for a piece of the primary legislation that was discussed previously by the House. That seems a bad principle of legislation, and if it is to be used, it should be used extremely sparingly and only in emergency circumstances.
This Bill is generally quite benign and innocuous, but surprisingly it contains a Henry VIII power to amend the Insolvency Act 1986 and the Energy Act 2004 and its schedule by secondary legislation. In this instance, the proposal to allow that is not only suggested in terms of providing detailed modifications on particular aspects of the insolvency rate legislation by secondary legislation, but it enables a Henry VIII power to be put through Parliament on the basis of a negative resolution which, as I said this morning, would give Parliament very little scrutiny of the whole process.
This morning we discussed the difficult conditions that might apply if the DCC became insolvent, and the need for speed and urgency might conceivably justify passing such a measure through the House by negative resolution. We cannot, however, really apply those arguments to this clause because this is not something that will need to be done as a matter of urgency. As the memorandum states:
“The earliest the licence is expected to be re-tendered and could potentially be transferred to a non-GB company would be 23 September 2025.”
What we are considering is not exactly an urgent process, and neither is it in parallel with the ideas put forward when we discussed the previous clause. This is a Henry VIII power that proposes to amend primary legislation by means of a negative procedure where no urgency is envisaged—it is a simple as that. In those circumstances, it seems to me, and even given the Minister’s own words, that there can be little justification for taking through these legislative procedures with a negative resolution. That is why the amendment substitutes the word “affirmative” for “negative”. Bad though we think Henry VIII powers are generally, if there is to be such a power, it should at least be passed by affirmative, rather than negative procedure, and I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.

Richard Harrington: I cannot tell him about companies generally, but I know within energy, which is my field, that there are precedents within the Energy Act 2004. My hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green next to me has told me the actual point—in fact he has not, he has told me exactly what I have just said. I was trying to be clever and remember the clauses, but I know it was the Energy Act 2011, which set up other special administrative regimes. This is a common system for SARs. There is ample precedent for that and it would seem very strange, for no particular reason, to give this special administrative regime a different rule to others. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take point that into consideration.
The SAR has largely been formulated with GB-registered companies in mind, since a GB company is the current Smart Meter Communications Licence holder; that is true. However, there is a possibility that at some point in the future the licence holder could be a non-British company. He is right to say that the earliest the licence is expected to be re-tendered is September 2025. I know that delegated legislation moves slowly, but I accept his point that this is not a speed matter. I could not even try to argue in front of him or yourself, Mrs Gillan, that this was the case.
Although a number of adaptations to the special administration regime catering for non-GB companies have already been made by the Energy Act 2004 applied by this Bill, we may find that further modifications are needed to account for a non-British company becoming active in the provision of smart meter communications services.
In effect, clause 4 extends the application of the existing power and procedure in the Energy Act 2004 in relation to the network operator SAR to the Smart Meter Communication SAR, so there are two there. As we have said, there is a precedent for this provision in the Energy Act 2011 in relation to the energy supplier SAR.
We suggest that the negative resolution procedure provides Parliament appropriate oversight for introducing what would be very detailed, narrowly focused modifications. They are very narrowly focused, as these powers should be. In fact, even the Bavarian powers referred to by the hon. Gentleman in the last Bill Committee were probably quite narrow. Actually, they may well have included execution and things; I do not really know what Henry IX got up to in Bavaria. They would probably have involved delegated legislation of a different nature. In this case, these are detailed modifications, narrowly focused on particular provisions of insolvency legislation, and their specific application to a non-British company. I would argue—he may choose not to accept the argument—that it is important that we are consistent in the procedures we apply to the exercise of these powers in different energy SARs. It does not make sense to have one that is different from the others. I do hope that the hon. Member for Southampton, Test will understand my concerns about his amendment and agree to withdraw it.

Alan Whitehead: The Minister tried quite hard, but did not actually say anything new, other than what is already on the delegated legislation memorandum that I myself read out to the Committee. That was essentially the Minister’s defence of the procedure he is seeking to introduce.
I might have anticipated some other, particular reason—in addition to it not being urgent—for putting this forward as a negative resolution. There apparently is not one, other than that it is fairly narrowly drawn and relates to the Insolvency Act 1986, but nevertheless it amends the Insolvency Act 1986 by secondary legislation and negative procedure. That is the point that I was making: it is not the narrowness of it, but the procedure by which the legislation is amended. This is an important principle for legislation in general, and I am therefore afraid that I do not think we can withdraw the amendment this afternoon. We would like to see this an affirmative procedure. In the absence of any good ideas that might arise in the next few minutes—a bit like the EU negotiations on the border—we may have to divide the Committee on this.

Steve McCabe: The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that any potential modifications are subject to an independent valuation. The reason why I ask the Committee to consider this is relatively simple. The Committee will recall that the Minister told us earlier in the proceedings that he thought some people—may be even some Members—were a little cynical about the DCC. I am not sure that people are necessarily cynical, but I think it is important for a programme in which there are already seven or eight world-first technological developments, including device level interoperability and a separate communication system, to highlight some of the substantial commercial and operational costs in play.
I am sure that the Minister has been doing his homework and I hope that he can provide a bit of insight to the Committee into what he foresees as the risks and difficulties in the months ahead. When I was pursuing the issue of meter asset providers in an earlier sitting, I think the Minister said—I wrote it down at the time—that he regarded the role that these people were playing was “a failure”, but he thought it was a technical failure that he hoped would be changed within months by the technical interoperability changes that he was planning.
I am not sure that I believe that is absolutely accurate. It seems to me that MAPs are an issue affecting not only SMETS 1 meters, but the roll-out of SMETS 2. The danger relates to the deemed rental—the charge that the MAP people make to the supplier for the first arrangement. When someone makes the smart move, like the hon. Member for Stirling, to somewhere else, the owner—the MAP—may then say, “We are going to change the basis of rental,” and the deemed rental costs will go up.
It has been suggested that that is a particular deterrent for some of the smaller suppliers, which, I am advised, have made a presentation to BEIS on the subject. If the issue is not addressed, the danger is that the deemed rentals will prevent the success of the DCC project, and therefore the Minister’s ambitions and the wider aims. I do not know whether the Minister is in a better position today to tell us how that is going—he has been generous in his offers to consult with, meet and talk to people—but BEIS’s plans for the enrolment and adoption of SMETS 1 meters are supposed to be with us before the end of this year. As I look at my little Christmas calendar, it seems to me that the days are ticking away, and I was wondering where we have got to.
The amendment’s purpose is, I hope, relatively straightforward. It is designed to protect customers and prevent the potentially large costs of smart meter communication licensee administration from being passed from one to the other. One of the expert witnesses we heard from claimed that the suppliers providing the many DCC SMETS 1s were doing so at 10% of the money already spent by the DCC. That is a huge amount of cash, so we cannot take this lightly.
If I have understood it correctly, this is the situation we find ourselves in. Clause 7(1) and (2) states that the modifications can be made using the powers in clause 6 to raise the prices that the licence holders charge their customers until we reach the point where they have got enough money to pay for the smart meter communication licensee administration.
Effectively, this is about where that money is being transferred. It would not make sense for the Minister to make that judgment or to encourage anyone else to do so without some kind of independent analysis of what is happening. I assume that the Minister does not know what the cost of a smart meter communication licensee administration scheme will be; I would not expect him to. In the unlikely event of a catastrophic failure, he may be the person in the driving seat who is forced to make these changes, so it seems to me that the cost of any such administration and the impact it will have on the consumer and therefore on energy prices should be properly evaluated with a pretty good degree of oversight. That is the purpose of the amendment.
I do not expect the Minister to agree to the amendment with open arms, but there is nothing in it that undermines what he is trying to achieve. All it is trying to do is to ensure that the rest of us know what is likely to be involved if we get to that stage.

Richard Harrington: I thank the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak for their contributions. Clause 6 grants the Secretary of State the power to make modifications to licensing conditions when he or she considers it appropriate to do so in connection with the special administration regime for the smart meter communication licensee.
The licence modifications envisaged under the power are already drafted and publicly available. They allow the costs of administration—however unlikely we agree such an event to be—to be recouped from the industry where there is a shortfall in the assets it gets back to meet the costs. As the hon. Members for Southampton, Test and for Birmingham, Selly Oak have said, it is hard—indeed, almost impossible—to estimate the cost of administration up front, and I fully accept their point that there cannot be a blind process or an open cheque; a firm of accountants should not be able to do what they want, when they want, and then charge for it.
One reads about insolvency operations in the press and sometimes one gets the impression that the costs of the administration are more than the insolvency achieves. However, I think that is very unlikely in this case, simply because of the guaranteed revenue stream and all the things we have been through before. The point made in moving the amendment is right: we should try to understand what the costs would be.
It has been estimated that the DCC has cost billions, and that is basically everything aggregated over the period. To put the issue in perspective, it projects its annual costs to be £67 million in 2019-20. Obviously, a significant part of the administration costs would pay the ongoing costs while the business is kept going to get more revenue and find a buyer. Those are already planned for; they are not new costs. In layman’s terms, new costs would be the fees for accountants and lawyers to deal with the actual physical administration itself. Those new costs are not to do with the actual running of the business, and I believe them to be limited. On the issue of scale, I cannot see the administration costs being disproportionate to the annual costs or the huge amount of set-ups.
The key point of the amendment is that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak and the shadow Minister feel that we should try to estimate the costs and that a lot more knowledge is needed and should be made available to the public. When the Government come to formally consult on the modifications, which they will in due course, the consultation document will provide an assessment of the potential scale of the cost that might need to be recouped from the industry. That can only be an estimate, because no one knows the exact figures, but there must be comparables. I suspect that the accountancy firms and other relevant parties, such as a regulator, will put in their estimates. I am very happy to provide that assessment in the consultation document. The responses that come in should be very helpful.
On the scale of cost, the assessment will need to take a variety of factors into account. Part of that is the running costs of the licensee and an estimate of the special administration cost. We will take advice from relevant parties—including the independent regulator, Ofgem—when providing the estimate of the potential scale of the cost. I undertake that the consultation on the licence modifications will be published and that we will invite comments from energy consumers as well as other representative bodies. One of the questions that we will expressly ask is whether the consultees agree with the assessment that we are laying out in the consultation. I undertake that, prior to the licence modifications being made, I am happy to make available to both Houses of Parliament the Government’s response to the consultation, which will report on the conclusions on the estimated potential scale of costs.
Having considered those points, I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will withdraw the amendment.

Steve McCabe: Again, the Minister has been quite helpful. We need to remember that we are talking about a circumstance where there has been a catastrophic economic failure of the DCC. That is why the Minister would be in that position. It would inevitably be—in part, at least—because of doubts about the system, resulting in escalating costs. It would be against a background of an ongoing dispute about SMETS 1 and SMETS 2 meters and the whole question of interoperability, and it would of course then feed into the question whether the meter asset providers were also adding to the cost because of the new role in which they found themselves. That is why we would be in that situation.
In such a situation, I certainly would not want to be the Minister putting my name to something without having some reasonable evaluation of what exactly had happened; how much the cost was likely to escalate; and whether or not this thing was turning into a white elephant. It seems to me that that it would be pretty necessary to do that.
If the Minister is confident that the information he will glean from the consultation and that he will make public will be enough to provide him and his colleagues with the cover they might require if they ever find themselves in that situation, I am happy to accept his judgment. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Alan Whitehead: I am in some difficulty here, inasmuch as what the Minister said about the content of the Government amendments is sound and clear. Indeed, they make an addition to the Bill and take us forward on getting ready for some of the benefits of smart meters, such as half-hourly settlements. However, as he indicated, this is effectively a separate Bill that has been lowered into the Smart Meters Bill and attached to it as Government amendments. He quite candidly stated that he took his chance—fair enough—to put it in the Bill, but it creates problems, some of which are at the very least technical, and some of which are possibly of a far wider nature.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak pointed out, none of this was mentioned on Second Reading. We went into Second Reading on the basis of the long title of the Bill, which was very restrictive. Indeed, I counselled a number of my colleagues who wanted to table wider amendments to the Bill that the long title prevented that. I said that it is a closely drawn long title, and we are required to stick to what it says. We have done that in this Committee. We have had a good debate about a number of issues within the terms of the long title, but there is a range of issues that hon. Members would very much have liked to discuss, and for perfectly proper reasons relating to the long title it has not been possible to discuss them in this Committee.
Once we got through Second Reading, we found that a procedure has been used that I am not aware has been used regularly—if at all in recent years—for a piece of legislation: changing the long title of a Bill during its passage. That is a very rare procedure in this House. I refer to the authority of Wikipedia—I say that for what it is worth. The Wikipedia people say:
“In the United Kingdom, the long title is important since, under the procedures of Parliament, a Bill cannot be amended to go outside the scope of its long title. For that reason, modern long titles tend to be rather vague”.
This one was not vague, but amendments have clearly been introduced that are outside the scope of the long title.
There are some precedents, albeit not from this Parliament but from associated Parliaments whose precedents nevertheless have some relevance to this Parliament through the processes of the Privy Council. In Australia, a Department wished to amend a Bill whose title was “A Bill to amend the XX Act, and for related purposes”. My note, which is a drafting direction from Parliamentary Counsel, states that:
“The proposed amendments were not related to the subject matter of the Bill, but would have amended an Act administered by the relevant Minister. The Deputy Clerk advised that if proposed amendments fall a long way outside the subject matter of the Bill, it could be considered a misuse of the House’s powers for a motion to be moved to suspend the standing orders. Accordingly, the amendments were not able to be included in the Bill.”
A version of suspending the Standing Orders has been undertaken in this House. Amendments 18 and 19 actually add some new words to the long title of the Bill, so apparently, by magic, things that were outside the scope of the Bill are now inside the scope of the Bill.

Alan Whitehead: Forgive me, Mrs Gillan. It is not about angels dancing on the head of a pin; it is an important issue about the procedures of the House. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is puzzling over whether we would “sacrifice the good” of what is before us because of concern about a procedure. That is not a position that the Opposition have put ourselves in; it is a position that we are all in because these amendments have all been grouped together when they refer to two different things, one of which is a procedure and the other of which is substance.
As far as the substance is concerned, the hon. Gentleman may rest assured that we think the substance is good and we do not wish the Bill to be sabotaged because we have concerns about how those good things came to be, but I think the hon. Gentleman will clearly understand that if that procedure is taken as a usual state of affairs in this House, without anybody drawing attention to it for the future, there may in future be circumstances under which someone wishes to introduce a much worse series of amendments than the one that we have today. We know, because the Minister was clear about it, that another Bill was effectively grafted on to this Bill. I can understand the reasons why the Minister wanted to do that.

Alan Whitehead: Thank you for that, Mrs Gillan, but I think you will appreciate that even under those circumstances—where we get to a position where we  can conceivably vote in favour of the amendments this afternoon because we think they are good amendments—and then we get to the end of the process, whereby we vote against the extension of the long title of the Bill, that automatically, if it succeeds, invalidates the existence of those amendments in the first place, because the long title of the Bill will not have been changed at that point, and therefore those amendments will not have existed. That also seems to me to be a potential concern about procedure for the future.

Richard Harrington: I thank the shadow Minister for his comments. I am quite a simple person. When I was looking at this bit of the legislation, I asked a very simple question of the experts in the Department—the parliamentary advisers and lawyers: is it acceptable, is it within the rules and within the scope of the Bill, to include the half-hourly settlement? The answer was, “It is the decision—many things are—of the House authorities and the Chair, but it seems to us that it is very much within scope.”
I would like to make it clear that the scope of the Bill has not changed with this Government amendment. It remains about smart metering and data from smart  meters. As Mrs Gillan has confirmed, the House authorities have said that. As such, the amendments in scope would have been in scope then. Half-hourly settlements are not possible without smart-metering.
I promise I am not making light of the comments of the hon. Member for Southampton, Test. He means to get them on the record and he has explained that very reasonably. I thank him for his general support for the amendments, but at the same time I hope that he gives me the credit that this was not some charlatan move to slip something round the corner that was marginal in nature.

Steve McCabe: I am not sure this need necessarily take long. As we have heard, it is a legal obligation on the energy suppliers to take all reasonable steps to meet the 2020 target of every household being offered a smart meter. Both new clause 1 and new clause 11 outline some steps that the Secretary of State could take to ensure timely completion of the roll-out while protecting consumers and ensuring the benefits of the roll-out are fully realised.
New clause 1 is fairly specific in the information it asks the Secretary of State to publish, and includes the progress toward the 2020 target as well as information on the costs and projected costs of DCC and the installation of meters more generally. I listened to the Minister earlier making a commitment to publish an annual report on the progress of the roll-out. Most people, certainly on this side, thought that was a helpful and reasonable offer.
It is important to point out to the Committee that the Government’s commitment to annual progress reports has fallen by the wayside. What we actually heard today was an offer from the Minister to reinstate them, as far as I can see. In December 2012 the Government published their first annual progress report on the roll-out, which gave an overview of the programme and the progress to date. They subsequently published two further progress reports in 2013 and 2014, but since then there have been none. Obviously, we know that from 2014 the progress was not quite so good to report on; I do not know whether that is the reason, but my point is that we stopped getting the reports.
That is why I thought it would be helpful to have on the face of the Bill a commitment for a regular progress report. I was pleased to hear the Minister say earlier that it is his intention to provide it anyway, and that is good enough for me, but I cannot guarantee that the Minister will be in his post even for the duration of the Bill, can I? I have no way of knowing what a successor might do. Goodness, I wish the Minister well and I hope he is in post much longer than the duration of the Bill, but I am simply recognising that, if I look around the present Government, quite a few people who were in post a few weeks ago are no longer there. These things happen, and they happen quickly in politics. We can never tell what is around the corner.
I am simply observing that the Minister’s word in itself is not sufficient for the purpose, because what the Government have previously done was to publish reports and then stop publishing them when the information became less convenient. I thought it would make sense to make a request to have it on the face of the Bill, and that is what new clause 1 seeks to do.
New clause 11 requires the Secretary of State to commission an updated, independent cost-benefit analysis of the roll-out. Mrs Gillan, you will not want me to go over all this again, but we know that the cost-benefit analysis from 2016 showed a downward trend. Although I hear the Minister and I know his intentions are good, my concern throughout has been that we could reach a stage where those benefits turn negative. That is why I raise this matter.
We heard from Audrey Gallacher of Energy UK. She said that she thought it was time for a new impact assessment to ensure that the benefits case is still alive. The value of the assessment that I am calling for—an independently led assessment, as mentioned in new clause 11—is that it would bring confidence to all stakeholders. They would have a chance to consider independent information, so it would be good for the suppliers. It would be good for the Department and for the DCC and customers. If it were to show that the benefits case is no longer as strong as it was, it would give us the opportunity to look at other approaches that the Government might choose to pursue. It would take us back to the question of whether there is a different model—with the SMETS 1 and the mini DCC we heard the evidence about—as opposed to the elaborate DCC model that has taken up so much of the consideration of this Committee.
In the situation of uncertainty surrounding the roll-out, an updated cost benefit analysis would be a sensible commitment to include on the face of the Bill. It would  provide stakeholders with certainty and transparency and improve the credibility of the smart meter roll-out. For those reasons I suggest that the Committee considers adopting both new clauses 1 and 11.

Alan Whitehead: I thought I was throwing my voice for a moment. I have other talents, but not that.
The content of new clauses 1, 7 and 11 can essentially be tucked into what the Minister has said about an annual report. The desired outcome of this debate might be to obtain an indication from the Minister on whether the concerns raised are the sort of thing he thinks might be in the annual report he has mention. New clause 7 draws particular attention to the relationship between the total number of smart meters that have been installed at the end of particular attainment periods and what is happening to the functionality of those meters in those periods. That relates to some extent to a concern about what companies are required to do, so far as their agreements with Ofgem are concerned, about each period that they have to report on for the purpose of the roll-out and what attainment they are expected to achieve as part of their legal requirements to roll out smart meters in that period.
A little while ago, Ofgem issued a direction to those energy companies setting out what attainment periods would consist of and what would be regarded as reasonable attainment by companies installing smart meters against the target set for each attainment period. The position in that legal direction was that those companies should achieve 95% attainment in each period to be regarded as within the terms placed on them by Ofgem. If their attainment is outside that, they may be regarded as not having fulfilled their legal obligations and may be liable for fines or other intervention.
Attainment periods were used, at least in part, to inform the recent consultation about what level of SMETS meters can be installed beyond April 2018 to use up stocks of SMETS 1 meters. Large energy companies’ entitlement to undertake further installation in the next period relates to what they attained so far as roll-out is concerned in the previous quarter. There is a series of related things, all of which are concerned with attainment in a particular period, in those energy companies’ agreements.
What the attainment periods and numbers do not show is what is actually happening in terms of what might be called nailing meters on the wall. Concern has been expressed in various quarters as the roll-out has progressed about the extent to which the meters that are being installed really work. There are certainly reports that in some circumstances, as the roll-out has increased, people have set aside a day to have their meter put in  and it has been installed very quickly, but it has turned out not to function at all, or to function to only a limited extent. Those meters have to be visited again, sometimes on a number of occasions, and rectified before roll-out can be said to be complete, but it appears that attainment is measured by whether the visit for the smart meter to be installed takes place, whether the meter subsequently functions or not.
As roll-out increases and there are issues with the functionality of meters in the transfer from the SMETS 1 regime to the SMETS 2 regime as far as DCC is concerned, there will undoubtedly be a pool of meters that do not function for one reason or another. Some will be non-functioning because of switching, some because of when they were installed and some because of how they were installed. There will also be circumstances in which installations are marginal to the existing DCC operating system. Meters may just about get a signal and just about work, or may turn out not to work as well as they should do, and might then be subject to the additional procedures that we have discussed—the procedures for patching systems and the various systems for making meters in flats fully communicable. In areas of Scotland in particular but also in other parts of the United Kingdom, the area network will operate only partly so far as receiving signals from smart meters is concerned and will have to be patched and extended, possibly on the basis of experience—that is, on the basis of whether, after installation, meters turn out to work as they should.
The new clause therefore suggests that there should be information in an annual review on the total number of functioning smart meters at the end of each attainment period so that companies cannot simply report that they are reaching their 95% attainment target, or whatever it is, but actually walk away at the end of each attainment period and leave the position much worse than it appears. That is an important element of the roll-out, not only in terms of those attainment periods being an accurate depiction of what has actually happened so far as installation is concerned, but in giving the public confidence that the roll-out is actually a roll-out and not an exercise in trying to get numbers up regardless of what they report on the objective circumstances they find themselves in once the meters have been installed.

Alan Whitehead: Indeed; my hon. Friend makes an important point. As we have discussed, there remains a little bit of a discrepancy, one might say, between the ambition of those responsible for it for what the roll-out looks like and the Government’s claim that the target really is that everyone will have been offered a smart meter by 2020. It seems important to me that we reconcile those two positions as the roll-out progresses. In a way, Ofgem is actually reconciling those positions in terms of getting a picture of what is actually happening so far  as the roll-out is concerned on the actual number of meters installed in homes after the end of the visits, but it is not quite yet getting to the position of whether the meters are actually operating as they should.
My hon. Friend is also right that I am anxious to make sure the Minister is as well protected as possible; I always am. It is a personal ambition of mine that the Minister should be properly protected under all circumstances, and the new clause will help him in that respect. It will give us, I hope—among other things in the Minister’s annual reports—an accurate depiction of the real picture, so that the defence of that picture can be undertaken by the Minister on the basis of accurate information that will not come back to whack him around the head.
I can think of no better protection for the Minister than being assured that he will not be whacked around the head by statistics at a later date. I am therefore sure that he will take the substance of the new clause on board in his response, if not the whole new clause, particularly in terms of what may well be in the report he has promised us for the future.

Richard Harrington: I thank hon. Members for their contributions, particularly the shadow Minister—or should I now call him my protection officer? I have never had one of those before and thought that I was not likely to, but I am very pleased that he has taken it upon himself to appoint himself to that position, which I warmly endorse and I thank him for that.
The new clauses give me the chance to set out the Government’s commitments for reporting on the smart meter roll-out, which is very important and something that I have given a lot of thought to. Before I do, I want to mention a couple of points that the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran made, because they are quite different. She said that consumers were being misled by their energy companies and bullied into getting a smart meter—which is really what she was saying. I reiterate that it is not compulsory for anyone to have a smart meter installed. Consumers have a right to decline them.

Richard Harrington: I do not have an obvious explanation for the hon. Gentleman, but I am perfectly prepared to find out and write to him. As far as I am concerned, when I took over, annual reports seemed an obvious thing to do. I would like them to be as comprehensive as possible. I think that that is in everybody’s interest. I hope that they get press coverage and that people read them and say “I want one of these.” That is what we want.
In his erudite speech, the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington made a point about changing behavioural patterns. In my previous job in pensions, they called it nudging people. Publicity about the annual report or anything else to do with it is going to nudge people’s behaviour. Instead of people reacting to nonsense offers that pretend that it is compulsory, as mentioned by the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, I hope that they will think, “I want to find out about those. I’ll go online or call. I want one.” That is what the advertising campaign on buses, the tube and so on is doing: it is nudging people and trying to change their behavioural pattern. The reporting side of it, which should be as comprehensive as possible, is very much part of that.
The smart metering programme is being delivered with a high degree of transparency through our existing reporting regime, and I am certainly going to reflect on how reporting can be made clearer. In particular, I undertake to deliver further information via the annual update of the smart meter implementation programme, and I will make copies available to both Houses. If there are changes in the interim, I do not think it would right to undertake to produce quarterly reports. That would be a very bureaucratic process. There would probably not be enough information to change, and they would quickly become outdated. I do not think that would be reasonable. However, if there are fundamental changes, or even good incremental changes—or, indeed, bad incremental changes—it is in our interests to publicise them and to deal with them. I am going to look at ways to make this as sharp and clear as possible. In the light of that explanation and commitment, I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak will withdraw the motion.

“(1) Within 3 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State shall commission an independent review of current public awareness of smart meter rollout and public satisfaction with the rollout.
(2) The report under subsection (1) shall consider—
(a) the effectiveness of consultation between industry and the public about the rollout process;
(b) the awareness among vulnerable groups of smart meter rollout;
(c) the satisfaction of the public, in particular vulnerable  
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a copy of the report before Parliament and arrange for an opportunity for the report to be debated within 6 weeks of the report being laid.”—
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to commission an independent review of public awareness and satisfaction of smart meter rollout and for the review to be debated in the House of Commons.

Steve McCabe: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I shall be brief. This is almost where my interest in this subject started. When I first came across smart meters, I thought “Hey, that is a really clever idea”. Then, like the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran, I started to attend to stories of people saying that they were being pressed to have these meters and that they were being treated in a fairly cavalier fashion. As I have said at various stages, I felt that public certainty, public satisfaction and, indeed, basic public knowledge was a problem.
New clause 2 is self-explanatory: it calls for a review of public awareness levels and satisfaction with the roll-out. I want to know in particular about the effectiveness of the consultation between the industry and the public. I know that this was not particularly about satisfaction levels—it was more about roll-out procedures—but I found the funnel evidence pretty bamboozling. It did not do anything for my confidence as I listened to that. We need know how effective that consultation is.
I am particularly concerned that awareness is raised among those people whom we might call vulnerable groups or vulnerable users. It should be a central concern of the Minister that they benefit.
We heard from hon. Member for Moray during the evidence session that he was particularly concerned, and rightly so, about satisfaction and roll-out in rural areas. It would do not good at all were we to embark on a multi-billion pound project and then discover that consumers in certain parts of the country were getting a poorer deal.

Steve McCabe: I accept that, although I interpret “satisfaction” to also mean satisfaction with the delivery and benefit of the meter.
What I am asking for it is self-explanatory. I will not do us any good if I keep going on about it. I have made the point to the Minister, so he knows why I think it is important.

Alan Whitehead: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause, as I flagged up to the Committee earlier, relates to clause 4(1) and to the circumstances in which a successor to a company that has gone into administration might be brought about, and the safeguards concerning the identity of that successor company should it take over the reins. My understanding of those circumstances is that, should there be a period of administration, a successor company would take over prior to 2025 when administration is determined. There could then be a retendering, as it were, of the process by which a company runs the DCC in 2025. At both of those points, there would potentially be a question about the identity of that company. We know the identity of the company at present: Capita is running the DCC, and the DCC as an organisation is a fully owned subsidiary of Capita.
I must say for the record that my ideal way of running the DCC would be for it to be a public body and not responsible to a company. The formation of the DCC, maybe at a future date should the circumstances be different, as a not-for-profit public interest body concerned with the proper administration of the whole smart meter arrangement, in the public interest and for the public good, would be the best way to organise things. That is not the position now, however, and it may not be for some while.
The amendment would look at how one might align the public interest and public good with circumstances under which a successor company might be called on, in the event of administration procedures. On this occasion it would give a power to the Secretary of State, since it would give the Secretary of State discretion to look at the circumstances of a tender or a post-administration arrangement—presumably also by tender—in circumstances where a non-GB company were to become the successor or putative successor company running the DCC.
Without entering into any great conspiracy theories, we have to have some regard for the ownership and running of an organisation that holds a huge amount of information about what we do, who we are and how we work. That is vital information concerning not just our activities, but our aggregate activities. Ensuring that the company running the DCC is working appropriately in the national interest with that information and that crucial role seems to me quite an important thing, which we ought to consider.
As things appear to stand at the moment—I do not wish to name any companies for fear that, outside the privilege of the House, they decide to deal with me appropriately—

Alan Whitehead: I thank the Minister for his explanation. Perhaps I could seek a slight amount of further clarification on the degree of confidence that, in these particular circumstances, he would be able, in principle, to intervene using the powers he has set out that exist elsewhere in Government. He appears to be saying that powers already exist that would allow him to address the issue, and that new clause 3 is therefore not necessary. Is he confident that in the specialised circumstances pertaining to administration and subsequent events, those powers would be fully applicable in terms of the concerns that I have raised?